Delhi High Court
Sh. Ravinder Singh Raghav vs Sh. Lokesh Upadhyay on 22 January, 2020
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL.M.C. 5946/2019 and Crl.M.A.No.40865/2019
Reserved on : 20.01.2020
Date of Decision : 22.01.2020
IN THE MATTER OF:
SH. RAVINDER SINGH RAGHAV
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Abhitosh Pratap Singh,
Advocate.
versus
SH. LOKESH UPADHYAY ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Raj Kumar, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
1. By way of present proceedings, the petitioner has assailed the
order dated 20.08.2019 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge in CR
No.51/2019 vide which the revision petition filed on behalf of the
petitioner, challenging the closure of petitioner's right to cross-examine
the respondent/ complainant, was dismissed.
2. The respondent/complainant instituted a complaint case under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the present petitioner
for dishounour of two cheques of Rs.15 lacs each. After pre-summoning
evidence of the complainant, the petitioner was summoned vide an order
dated 17.09.2014.
3. The Trial Court on 20.04.2017 framed notice under Section 251
Cr.P.C. to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Thereafter, the case was listed on multiple dates for cross-examination of
the complainant, however, the petitioner/accused did not file any
application under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Ultimately, the Trial Court vide order dated 10.08.2018 closed the
petitioner's right to cross-examine the complainant.
4. The petitioner impugned the above-mentioned order dated
10.08.2018 through a revision petition filed on 24.07.2019 before the
Sessions Court. It is relevant to note that the Sessions Court noted that
the delay of 8 months was not properly explained by the
petitioner/accused in the accompanying application filed under Section 5
of the Limitation Act. The impugned order has also noted that sufficient
opportunities were given to the petitioner to move application under
Section 145 (2) of Negotiable Instruments Act. It was noted that the
petitioner/accused was granted about 16 months in total to move the
aforesaid application. In fact, on 01.03.2018, an opportunity was granted
subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/-, still no application came to be
filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was
not represented by a counsel before the Trial Court and on account of
medical ailments, for which supporting documents have been filed, the
petitioner could not file an application under Section 145(2) of N.I. Act.
He further submitted that the petitioner could not file the revision petition
before the Sessions Court in time, since he had no knowledge of the
passing of the order dated 10.08.2018. He has referred to the petitioner's
admission in the hospital on 18.10.2018 and discharge on 17.11.2018.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant
submitted that the petitioner was fully aware of the present case against
him, as he had appeared on 20.04.2017 when the notice under Section
251 Cr.P.C. was framed against him. He also referred to the order dated
01.03.2018 to submit that the petitioner was duly represented by his
counsel before the Trial Court. It is further submitted that the case is
pending at the stage of final arguments before the Trial Court.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
case records.
8. As noted hereinabove, the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was
framed on 20.04.2017 and the matter was fixed for 21.11.2017. The
petitioner appeared and the matter was re-notified for 01.03.2018 on
which date, the petitioner appeared along with his counsel but did not file
any application under Section 145(2) of the NI Act. The matter was re-
notified for 10.08.2018, when the trial court closed the complainant's
evidence after expiry of about 11 months the petitioner challenged the
order dated 10.08.2018 before the Sessions Court resulting in passing of
the impugned order on 20.08.2019. It is seen that although the petitioner
did suffer some medical ailments however it was not of such a nature
justifying non-filing of application under Section 145(2) of the NI Act by
him. It is noted that such an application has not been filed even till date.
9. On 14.12.2019, the petitioner's statement under Section 281 r/w.
313 Cr.P.C. was recorded where also he sought time to lead defence
evidence, however, he did not take any steps to lead any defence
evidence. On 15.10.2019, the trial court passed an order closing the
defence evidence. The petitioner has not challenged the said order.
10. The complaint in the present case was filed before the trial court in
the year 2014 and the notice was framed on 20.04.2017. The case is
pending at the stage of final arguments. In view of the delay at every
stage, I do not find any illegality, perversity or infirmity in the impugned
order. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed along with the
pending application.
(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
JANUAURY 22, 2020
'dc'/na
